To comply with European Union law, we are required to inform users accessing "overunity.com" from within the
EU about the cookies that this site uses and the information they contain and also provide them with the means
to "opt-in" - in other words, permit the site to set cookies.
Cookies are small files that are stored by your browser and all browsers have an option whereby you can inspect
the content of these files and delete them if you wish.

The following table details the name of each cookie, where it comes from and what we know about the information
that cookie stores:

Cookie

Origin

Persistency

Information and Usage

ecl_auth

overunity.com

Expires after 30 days

This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised".
Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.

SMFCookie648

overunity.com

Expires according to user-chosen session duration

If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of
your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating
new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.

PHPSESSID

overunity.com

Current session only

This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and
non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent
and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.

pmx_upshr{NAME}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel
or individual block is collapsed or expanded

pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a
individual block is changed.

pmx_cbtstat{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.

pmx_poll{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.

pmx_{fadername}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.

pmx_LSBsub{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.

pmx_shout{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.

pmx_php_ckeck

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated
and will be deleted if the function executed.

pmx_YOfs

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number.
The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position
as before the click.

Notes:

1

We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other
sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of
these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK"
and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.

2

If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before
accepting cookies.

3

Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser
is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is
not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.

4

We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site
from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic
location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

For further and fuller information about cookies and their use, please visit
All About Cookies

Well, suppose someone had access to actual machines actually built by or under the direct supervision of John Bedini himself? Even with his signature or trademark right there laser-etched into the plastic? If _these_ machines were tested properly and found wanting -- that is, if they did not run themselves in self-looping, or by daisy-chaining with identical machines, or produce any actual overunity performance -- what then Mags and EF? What would be the conclusion?

Would you say that the Bedini phenomenon was just a mass delusion perpetrated by a huckster, or would you say that the experimenters themselves were idiots or dishonest or worse and needed Bedini himself (or his ghost) to operate the machines properly? Or is some other conclusion possible?

What then?

Have you tested these machines you talk about?? Lots of speculated 'ifs'. In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit. Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first. None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.

Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

"This thread will be a place where we replicate/build to the exact specs,any claimed OU device. We will need actual builders here,and not just keyboard jockeys."

I have in the past seen what people call "replications" that end up not being anything close to "exact specs", and then they say they have come to conclusions that the original must be bogus because their NEW VERSION of what they think is a better plan did not work. It is so laughable. But Im not laughing. Im disgusted. This has been happening for years now. Its a joke.

Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Quote

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet. That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow. So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? Ridiculous.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Quote

Of anything Erfinder has said here, it is all meant to say pretty much what I have just said. So Im in total agreement with his arguments on this, as 'should' many others here.

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearanceWhat is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

Quote

Brad said the thread was inspired by a pm to put up this thread. And just a few posts later Brad says how about the Bedini, then settles on it.

NopeGrum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

Quote

From what I understand over the years, the Bedini devices/machines were not about a circuit layout to produce claimed results. LOOK AT THE ENERGIZER!!! Everything else is off the shelf!!! The energizer is the only thing that you cannot buy ready made!!!! How is it that all of you can overlook that and just pick and choose what you think you can replace that with and call it an exact replication?

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

Quote

Well, if you all know better, then carry on. The end result will be "Bedini was a fake", and making that claim with a machine that had nothing to do with Bedini. That is my prediction. A prediction based on experience here in this and other forums. I cannot respect that in the least.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

Quote

Here is where I am in concert with Erfinder here...

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct

In fact I would need to test it myself to come any conclusions. So my answer is no.

With all that you just said, does that give lots of leeway to not having to stick with the circuit shown and just creating some new circuit that one thinks is just better before knowing and experiencing the original at all? What is so wrong with building the so called replication as closely to the depiction as possible especially if that was the set objective of the thread?? This is the problem with yours and other replications. They are alterations, not actual replications, and then you guys use that to debunk claims saying there is no difference. I cannot accept nor respect those conclusions. Sorry, but......

If the energizer is the 1 unique thing that we see in the depiction, would that not be something we should concentrate on being all else is obvious?

Brads 12v motor may not be the one that works best for his setup for example. Its just pulling a 12v motor off the pile and saying this is the one. Its, this is the flywheel and this is the gen, and the circuit, as simple as it already is, needs improvement and altered before anything is tried with the original circuit. Heck, maybe there are 50 other 12v motors that would be better fit. This isnt some 3 day build that we can say for sure that Bedini had nothing to match his claim. You should know this.

Me? Im putting together some things to experiment on the energizer end first. None of the other stuff matters unless the energizer is the best gen we could hope for. Then I would look for or build the most eff motor as a driver as needed. Then is the flywheel too much, not enough, or just right. Correct the switching as needed, etc.

Sure once the replication is made and tested, then things can be varied as necessary during testing naturally as we dont have those specs. But to just assume that the energizer is just some typical gen or alternator is wrong, otherwise that energizer would be labeled and look like say a car alternator, or 12v, 120v whatever generator. It is not.

Mags

Quote

Have you tested these machines you talk about?? Lots of speculated 'ifs'.

You may have a surprise coming your way

As to the rest of your post--it is very simple,as i stated in my last post.

The exact circuit will be used,and my circuit i posted was nothing more than a question--which you must have missed.

As for the energizer--you provide exact's,and i will build to those exact's.

What is the energizer?It has a rotor with magnets that pass a bunch of coils on a stator6 magnets,and 6 coils.The coil core's are made from soft iron bolts-->this is the V2 we are talking about here.The coils are hooked in series,and are half wave rectified,so as current only flows once the magnets are leaving the core.In Bedini's V2,he used a 12v fan motor from a car-a PM motor which PL says is no good--so who do we believe.

As i said,what advantage would Bedini's energizer have over my very well built generator,that has laminated core's,which would have far less eddy current loss than a solid iron core.It has machine wound coil's,unlike the energizer with it's hand wound coil's.

I can half wave rectify my generator exactly as John did.

It's all well and good to make the big shout about it being all wrong,but you must be able to back it up with why it's wrong,and followed by what is right.

Here is a couple of statements from John Bedini that he made in his 1984 book-Bedini's Free Energy Generator.Quote: The waves we want to generate,are like those from old DC generators.

Quote: I have run some test's in my lab,and discovered that certain types of energizers,generator's,and alternators do what we need.

Quote:Below is a picture of John next to one of his !working! prototypes in the early 1980's

What do you know,the energizer looks nothing like the one in his 1984 schematic ,and has no flywheel,and yet still is a working machine,in that it self charges the battery.

How is the low drag energizer made?

Well,here it is,straight from there books.

The theory is this.We only draw current from the coil's after the magnet has passed the coils,and not before.

Reason for this-->It is the Bedini's camp belief that if you only draw current from the coil after the magnet has passed the coil,you get less drag from the energizer than you would if you collected the current from the coil before the magnet reaches the center of the coil.

In other words,if the top half of the wave form is the magnet approaching the coil,and the bottom half of the wave form is the magnet leaving the coil,we should only pull from the bottom half of the wave form,as pulling from the top half of the wave form will create more drag

Another claim that just cant be.It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.

If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.

Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.

Then all you have to do is !as i have asked on many occasions now!,provide the exact spec's of the energizer--it's that simple.

Perhaps you missed my post,when i clearly stated that it was nothing more than a question--a thought i had along the way to building the exact machine-->that no one seems to know what it is-->the exact bit.

Are you too going to be one of those that say !it's all wrong!,but cannot provide what is correct?Can you state the differences between my energizer and John's,other than the way it looks?

Then provide proof that my energizer is different to that of John--other than it's appearanceWhat is different about the electrical output between mine and Johns?

NopeGrum put up the Bedini energizer,and i said lets give it a go.

Then explain to everyone here,how Bedini's energizer is any different to any other PM generator.Once you have done this,then you have the right to say we are doing it wrong.

It wouldnt matter if we replicated it down to the last bit of dust on the flywheel,when/if it showed negative results(like every one elses exact replications have),we still would have done it wrong--hey Mag's.

As i stated earlier,there will be those that claim it is being done wrong-->those very same people will not be able to explain as to why or how it's wrong,nor be able to provide the exact specs needed to make it right.

You have caught the Erfinder flu--much to say about how things are wrong,but provide nothing that is correct

Brad

Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick? Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results. Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here.

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry.

The fact is,if there is a cap across the energizer's output,then that cap will absorb any pulses sent from the energizer,and so,no pulses will reach the battery--it will be a smooth current flow for the 1 second period the energizer is returning energy back to the batteries.

If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.

Another claim that just cant be.It is claimed that for 1 second,the batteries feed power to the motor,and for the next second,the energizer recharges the batteries.If we look at Johns own schematic below,we can see that that is just not the case,as it has commutated switching,and the time the motor is powered,and the time that the energizer is charging the battery,is dependent on the RPM of the motor.Lets say the motor is doing a mere 1000RPM.That would mean that the commutator would switch from powering the motor,to charging the battery 32 times a second-a far cry from 1 second each.

The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini. When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.

Here is the thing....And its a response to all your replies above.....

Clearly the 2 depictions show all N mags. Why do you think that there were all N mags? Some gimmick? Or is there a purpose that is not magical but logical for the situation?

Why not try and make it as shown? Too much work involved? Its only 6 coils. Only 6 magnets.

If this were a place that actually wanted to investigate claims, like say even a gov project facility for example, where people took the time to try and replicate with all that is shown as accurately as they could, to get some sort of base reference, do you honestly think they would substitute the energizer portion of the machine with you washing machine motor as a gen? If the people were serious about what they were trying to investigate, then the answer should be no.

Tk calls Bedini a huckster. And I imagine you follow the same lines going into this. So there is no vested interest in going all the way because you are all set on it is a joke. Too much bias to delve into it seriously. Like I know you are doing a lot with what you have shown of what you are attempting to show. Im not doubting that and Im as impressed as Erfinder with what you have put together in a short amount of time. But I truly believe we will all be missing out on the actual ideas involved in the original workings by doing so, if you happen to conclude that the machine is worthless after the fact... Thats what Im trying to convey here.

Back in the days of the Whipmag, Tk, then his short name was Al, he stressed that replications should be as accurate as possible. Well these days it doesnt seem that way and replications become altered so much that they are not even recognizable in so many ways I want to cry.

Gota git to work.

Mags

Quote

I know you are going into this with the idea that you will not see good results.

If that were the case,then why would i be wasting my time and money?$60.00 already for the correct coupling and bushes.

As for the rest of your post,i now have in front of me exact building plans and a complete description of the device--and how it works.So,there will be no more--your building it wrong bullshit.

And why do i call it bullshit?--because JB him self states that it can be a home built energizer,a DC generator,or an AC alternator--it is only the wave that we are after.Guess what that wave is ?--a half wave rectified DC--thats it--his word's along with the wave form needed.

There is no special wave form,no motoring effect from the energizer as Erfinder claims.

It is all about the effects taking place within the lead acid battery--the pulse charging effect.

The battery-->a 12 amp hour motorcycle batteryThe motor--> a G.E permanent magnet motor--1100rpm 1/12hp--or 62 wattsQuote: Permanent magnet motors are used due to there high efficiency-->so that eliminates Peter Lindermanns bullshit about having to use a series wound motor.Coils-->6x 200 turns awg20 wire. Coils are all in phase,and hooked in series,then half wave rectified on the trailing wave.6x soft iron bolts as the cores.6x magnets--early type neo's--all north facing outMagnets bonded to aluminum disk/rotorThe two commutator brushes must be adjustable,so as fine tuning can be done.

It is also clearly stated that the size of the machine has no effect on it's operational function,and so can be scaled as needed.

If the cap and batteries are in parallel, then they will all 'see' current coming in pulses from the energizer.

I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Quote

The approximate one second on and one second off is in reference to Watson's large machine where he was supposed to be using the 555 timer based switching controller circuit devised by Bedini. When using the controller circuit, you can set the switching duration to whatever you like. How they knew Watson was using a one second switching duration I am not sure, but that is what Lindemann reported.

I would think that this the case,as it was John that designed the switching circuit for Jim.

I dont agree with this Void,as that is why we have caps in battery chargers--to smooth out the pulses before the current flows into the battery.

Hi Brad. When the battery and cap bank are in parallel, they are acting as just one large capacitor. They will all absorb the current pulses in a similar way. The battery can be seen as a very huge capacitance capacitor, although internally it has a different structure.

Then Cifta thinks the latest circuit is some sort of genius, and it hasnt even been tested yet. That circuit IS NOT the Bedini circuit to the EXACT SPECS as the thread was stated to follow. So lets just toss the 'no keyboard jockeys' rule also then why dont we. I mean, if we dont have to follow the EXACT SPEC rule, why should any other rules apply? Ridiculous.

Mags

Mags,

I am really disappointed in your reaction to my post. I was only commenting on an idea thrown out by Brad. He asked what do you think will happen if the circuit is connected like he showed. It was only an exercise in free thinking. I never suggested it was a good circuit nor an improvement over the original. In fact as has been pointed out by others the batteries will of course run down as there is no means to keep them charged. I just thought the idea of connecting the output in series with the power source was a good example of thinking outside the box.

I occasionally get good ideas from you and Brad and Erfinder and others. I don't always agree with everything any of you post but I still look forward to your opinions and ideas. If me expressing my opinion about something upsets you so much then I will just keep my thoughts to myself.